Kevin Lamoureux in the House of Commonshttp://openparliament.ca/politicians/kevin-lamoureux/Statements by Kevin Lamoureux in the House of Commons, from openparliament.ca.enFri, 27 Feb 2015 11:25:00 -0500Aboriginal Affairshttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-4/<p data-HoCid="3990481" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, this is a national crisis that is getting worse, and the same old talking points are an insult to the victims and their families.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990482" data-originallang="en">What the government claims to be action is a series of general justice measures not targeted specifically at indigenous women and girls. They are limited existing programs that have failed to stop the violence and inadequate funding commitments recycled from 2010.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990483" data-originallang="en">Will the government stop defending its failed approach and work toward a coordinated effort to put an end to the violence?</p>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:25:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-4/Aboriginal Affairshttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-3/<p data-HoCid="3990475" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, the status quo on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls simply cannot continue. Indigenous leaders, premiers, and the families of victims are in Ottawa today to discuss a coordinated action plan to end this epidemic of violence.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990476" data-originallang="en">They are looking for a federal partner. They are calling for new federal funding and for a national public inquiry.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990477" data-originallang="en">Will the government finally listen?</p>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:20:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-3/Respect for Communities Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-2/<p data-HoCid="3990363" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, the Insite location received a great deal of debate during second reading. When the bill mentions community consultation, let us recognize that the federal government at the time, the provincial and municipal governments, as well as many different stakeholders and even communities, all participated in one way or another in what has been deemed as a very successful program. This is something we should be giving credit to.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990364" data-originallang="en">The bill seems to say that when we have a site of this nature, there needs to be more consultation. Would the member not agree that there was a great deal of consultation regarding Insite and that it is wrong for the government to try to give the impression that there was no community consultation done and that, in fact, the whole issue surrounding Insite has been nothing but a resounding success? </p>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-2/Points of Orderhttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-1/<p data-HoCid="3990300" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that there is a great deal of merit in much of what the NDP House leader has put on the record. It is a very serious issue.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990301" data-originallang="en"> We anticipate that we will get some clarification from the Speaker, given the gravity of not only what took place last night, but also given the importance of the issue and the behaviour that was witnessed yesterday. </p>
<p data-HoCid="3990302" data-originallang="en">The leader of the Liberal Party stood in this place just last week and talked about how important it is from the Liberals' perspective that amendments be presented, such as parliamentary oversight, which has been a critical piece for the Liberal Party. As we present these amendments, we are going to be very cognizant of the behaviour of the majority Conservative membership on the committee. We have to be very cautious when we reflect on the behaviour of the Conservative majority that was witnessed yesterday. That behaviour is questionable at best, and it is important that the government House leader reflect on that behaviour and understand that it was inappropriate.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3990303" data-originallang="en">As we move through the committee process, specifically on Bill <a data-HoCid="6842344" href="/bills/41-2/C-51/" title="An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts">C-51</a>, we ask that the government be more sensitive to the reasons that the rules exist to allow for a proper functioning of the committee, and, hopefully, as members indicated during second reading, they will be sympathetic to the amendments that will be put forward. I hope this is not something we are going to be witnessing throughout the committee stage, as there are some critically important amendments that have to be introduced.</p>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:20:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/27/kevin-lamoureux-1/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-10/<p data-HoCid="3988340" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, a number of the Conservatives like to stand up and talk about this world-class safety record. I do not think it is fair for the government to assume the credit for either other governments or, more importantly, companies that have long-established responsible attitudes toward ensuring that we have good standards, at least in part. When I look at what is being proposed in the legislation, it talks about 70,000-plus kilometres just on the federal responsibility side. I do not know the actual kilometres, but there are many additional kilometres of non-federally regulated responsibilities for pipelines.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988341" data-originallang="en">I wonder if the member might want to provide his comment with respect to the National Energy Board's role to align federal and provincial pipeline safety as a whole, because it is not—</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:25:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-10/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-9/<p data-HoCid="3988310" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, I want to address the large pipeline that could and should have been given more attention by the government, and that is the Keystone XL pipeline. Where the government has been found wanting is on the issue of the environment and what it has been doing to protect the environment and dealing with issues related to the security and safety of our pipelines and so forth.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988311" data-originallang="en">One of the <a data-HoCid="78738" href="/politicians/stephen-harper/" title="Stephen Harper">Prime Minister</a>'s greatest failures is not being able to work with the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, to get this on the right track. This legislation has been needed for a number of years now. On the eve of an election only months away, here we are at second reading and, as has been pointed out, there is a very good chance that the legislation will not even be passed and given royal assent before that election. Why did the government take so long to present this legislation to the House?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:10:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-9/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-8/<p data-HoCid="3988205" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is related to motivation more than anything else.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988206" data-originallang="en">One of the benefits of enshrining in legislation the polluter pays principle is that it can be an incentive for companies building future pipelines, or even current ones, to ensure the final product that will carry our oil or natural gas is of a high standard. We would have limits, potential fines or mechanisms to recover the cost of damage that might be caused to the environment and so forth, Thereby, hopefully, we would have a better system going forward. </p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:25:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-8/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-7/<p data-HoCid="3988155" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could pick up on his comments in which he made reference to the length of time we are in session. There are another 11 weeks after tomorrow, keeping in mind that we have not had a debate on the budget—the budget has been put off—there are other pieces of legislation, and this is at the beginning stage of second reading.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988156" data-originallang="en">Reflecting on that, maybe the member could speculate on why the government might have even considered introducing the legislation. Could it possibly be because we are going into an election a little bit later this year?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:05:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-7/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-6/<p data-HoCid="3988073" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying just how important pipelines, and the security and safety of them, are for all Canadians. We are very much dependent on them in getting our oil and natural gas to market, not only in Canada but outside of Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988074" data-originallang="en">My question for the member is with regard to the importance of having a social contract with the different stakeholders, something which the <a data-HoCid="78738" href="/politicians/stephen-harper/" title="Stephen Harper">Prime Minister</a> and his government have been unable to achieve. It is one of the reasons why we do not have the Keystone pipeline and other issues that are critically important to the industry.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3988075" data-originallang="en">Would the member provide some comment on why the government has been unable to assist the industry in further developing the need for pipeline expansion?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:25:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-6/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-5/<p data-HoCid="3987781" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, again, what I would like to do is emphasize the magnitude or the size of the infrastructure for which the federal government is responsible. We are talking about well in excess of 70,000 kilometres of pipeline. There is a responsibility we have as a national government to ensure that we provide a sense of security and safety around those pipelines and that there is a consequence, in certain situations, that the company that ultimately put that pipeline into place would be held accountable for mishaps that would take place.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3987782" data-originallang="en">The idea of the polluter pays principle is incorporated into the legislation. There are other aspects of the legislation that would move us forward.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3987783" data-originallang="en"> I disagree with the Conservative member's assertion, in terms of the best in the world. I think our companies here in Canada strive to be the best in the world, in terms of providing that safety, but that is no thanks to the government. The government has not been providing leadership on that issue.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3987784" data-originallang="en">However, for the first time we do have this, and my question to the member is this. Would he not agree that having a polluter pays principle would force companies out there to give extra consideration to the importance of having safe and secure pipelines because, ultimately, they would have to pay for their mistakes?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:55:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-5/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-4/<p data-HoCid="3987738" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the New Democrats are being fully transparent on the issue of their positioning with respect to pipelines. When we listen to members speak to it, they give the impression that pipelines and the potential building of pipelines to meet market demands, not only for today but going into the future, is a bad thing, that we should not be building or adding to the 70,000-plus kilometres of pipeline infrastructure we currently have.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3987739" data-originallang="en">My question for the member is related to what he truly believes. Does he recognize the potential of getting more resources out of the ground for export purpose, for local consumption in Canada? If so, that would require either additional pipelines, increased train traffic or semis on our highways. Which one does he prefer?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:35:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-4/Pipeline Safety Acthttp://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-3/<p data-HoCid="3987707" data-originallang="en">Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want to see strong legislation that will provide a sense of security and safety related to our pipelines, whether it is the ones currently in place or future pipelines. To that degree, we have been supportive of the legislation the government has brought forward and see it as a step forward in this whole process.</p>
<p data-HoCid="3987708" data-originallang="en">One of the concerns the leader of the Liberal Party expressed yesterday in question period was the opportunities that have potentially been lost, and I should not use the word “potentially”, because of the government's inability to work with industry, with U.S. law-makers, and in particular, with President Obama in regard to the Keystone XL pipeline. The government talks about the benefits of the pipelines and what they prevent in terms of rail traffic and traffic on our roads and so forth. When it comes to the expansion of the pipelines, the government has not done that well. </p>
<p data-HoCid="3987709" data-originallang="en">Could the member explain why she believes that the government has not been able to take more tangible action with regard to the Keystone XL pipeline?</p>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:25:00 -0500http://openparliament.ca/debates/2015/2/26/kevin-lamoureux-3/